Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:25:06 +0100 (CET) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Artem Belevich <art@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-fs <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ZFS regimen: scrub, scrub, scrub and scrub again. Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301232224210.1971@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <CAFqOu6hYiPDEpr9uQdE%2BCfmcL7%2Bhumpx2W7jcnLKcJdOG8bzFg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CACpH0Mf6sNb8JOsTzC%2BWSfQRB62%2BZn7VtzEnihEKmEV2aO2p%2Bw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301211201570.9447@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20130122073641.GH30633@server.rulingia.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301232121430.1659@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <CAFqOu6hYiPDEpr9uQdE%2BCfmcL7%2Bhumpx2W7jcnLKcJdOG8bzFg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> gives single drive random I/O performance. > > For reads - true. For writes it's probably behaves better than RAID5 yes, because as with reads it gives single drive performance. small writes on RAID5 gives lower than single disk performance. > If you need higher performance, build your pool out of multiple RAID-Z vdevs. even you need normal performance use gmirror and UFS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1301232224210.1971>